|
November 29, 2011 - No. 121 Omnibus Crime Bill Youth Must Be Guaranteed a Bright Future
--
|
 Demonstration in Halifax against criminalization of black youth, June 20, 2009. (The Coast) |
For example, The Roots of Violence Report of 2008, commissioned by the McGuinty Liberals and co-authored by former Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry and former Liberal MPP Alvin Curling, blames youth and their families and not the state of the rich in Ontario for "youth violence," and called for more "communication" and "sharing of resources" between law enforcement agencies, service providers and the youth, among other similar proposals. In other words, the report paid lip service to the rights of the most vulnerable youth.
For services rendered to the Canadian state, the McGuinty Liberals named a youth super-jail in Brampton, the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre. Four months after its opening, the Toronto Star carried a news item on November 9, 2009 bringing to light the abuse, intimidation, denial of food and other forms of torture used in this "state of the art" youth super-jail, where the majority of inmates are black youth. Abuse and humiliation of youth go on in other youth detention centres across Ontario and in Canada that can often lead to youth committing suicide while in jail, such as the case of 18-year old Alison Smith, who was sent to a New Brunswick youth detention centre, when she was 14-years old and transferred to an adult jail in Cambridge, Ontario. This youth, who suffered from mental health issues, hanged herself while prison guards watched and did nothing to help her. No one has been held responsible for her death. Similarly, there are many documented cases of aboriginal youth committing suicide in custody, far away from their families and homes.
The government of Stephen
Harper and other governments
who represent and defend the Canadian state of the rich and their
interests -- while victimizing and criminalizing the most vulnerable
members of society through their brutal anti-social offensive and laws
-- must be held responsible for these
crimes. All youth deserve a bright future in Canada. They must form
defence organizations such as the K-W Youth Collective and others which
are fighting for a bright future for all youth within the context of
fighting for the rights of all.
But the question remains:
why is the Harper government creating hysteria about a bogus
"increasing crime rate" to justify criminalizing the youth and building
super jails and more detention centres? Concurrently, it is stepping up
its criminalization of not only youth but also all citizens, residents,
"guest workers" and asylum seekers as well as non-governmental
organizations and workers and unions fighting for their rights and the
rights of all. What the Harper government aims to achieve with these
super jails and detention centres and changes to well-established and
functional criminal and immigration law issues raises serious questions
about the Harper government's agenda and who it serves. This agenda has
in mind far more than targeting youth, criminalizing them and throwing
away the key. It would seem that the infrastructure is being put in
place to condemn all those who do not submit to the dictatorship of the
monopolies, who the Harper government portray as being gang members or
hooligans that deserve to have their civil rights removed. These
are arrangements for a fascist dictatorship, all in the name of
Canadian values and majority rule. It must not pass!
As one of the intervenors pointed out in the hearings of the Parliamentary committee reviewing Bill C-10, a significant way the bill will affect those who comprise the criminal justice system will be to block them from exercising their professional discretion in handing out sentences and related matters. "They're gagging the judges, crown counsel and defence attorneys, social workers and probation officers." This is a serious development indeed. It is a real indication of how dangerous Harper's agenda is to concentrate power and decision-making in fewer and fewer hands. It is also an indication of what the future holds, because the administrators of Canada's justice system and institutions called democratic are not likely to go against their conscience for long. They will have to be replaced with the kind of people who ignore the crimes they are committing under the hoax that they are just doing their job.
All of it underscores that, like it or not, Canadians must take stock now of their social responsibilities. Nobody can agree to submit to the kind of dictatorship the Harper government is bringing into being by manipulating his majority in the Parliament. As Canadians prepare to enter a new year, how to hold such a government to account must be the first question they put on the agenda for solution.(Statistics Canada, Public Safety Canada, www.prisonjustice.ca, Toronto Star)
Growing Concern and Opposition of Those Working in Criminal Justice System
The Harper government's omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, The Safe Streets and Communities Act, was introduced in the House of Commons by Attorney General Rob Nicholson on September 20. The bill completed second reading on September 28 and was sent to the Justice and Human Rights Committee for study. On November 24, the committee's report was tabled in the House of Commons. Debate at third reading of Bill C-10 will be limited to two days only.
 Rally against omnibus crime bill at Manitoba Legislature, November 8, 2011. (CBC) |
There is real concern emerging, especially from those who work in the criminal justice system, that the bill will lead to dangerous increases in the incarcerated population and in crime, and have other unforeseen consequences. Many are expressing concerns that the legislation represents a fundamental change to Canada's criminal justice system and that, by being rammed through the Parliament in the manner that it is, it is going to cause, rather than prevent, social problems when it becomes law.
At the University of Windsor, law students recently organized a public forum to inform themselves and others of the implications of the bill. In the Parliament, during the Justice and Human Rights Committee's review of Bill C-10, the Canadian Bar Association, the Office of the Correctional Investigator, the Quebec Association of Defence Lawyers and victim advocacy groups all raised fundamental concerns about the aims of the legislation and how it will be used to violate the human rights of both prison inmates and victims of crime.
In this issue, TML is reporting on some of the concerns being raised by those who work in the criminal justice system.
University of Windsor Law Students
Hold
Public Forum
On November 23, a public meeting on Bill C-10, the Harper government's omnibus crime bill, was held at the Law School of the University of Windsor. The forum was organized by law students who explained that when they asked one of their professors to suggest who might debate the bill, he could not think of a single faculty member who would defend it. With this the organizers said they recognized there is a serious problem with the legislation and something has to be done. The meeting was an attempt to inform the community of the bill's significance and to mobilize opposition to it. The students announced that a letter writing campaign opposing the bill is one of the initiatives they are undertaking.
Faculty from the Law School addressed the forum. The speakers were: Patrick Ducharme, a defence lawyer and lecturer in Criminal Advocacy and Criminal Procedure; David Tanovich, a defence lawyer and professor in the Faculty; and Brian Manarin, a Crown lawyer and lecturer.
Speaking to the overall significance of the legislation, Professor Ducharme stated that the legislation, in particular the provisions imposing mandatory minimum sentences for many new offences, was a marked departure from Canada's current system of criminal justice: "Mandatory minimum sentences are despised by members of the judicial community. They are absolutely despised by members of the defence [...] and they are also generally disliked by prosecutors because it takes so much discretion away from capable hard working people who understand the system. This is what is really fundamentally wrong with this legislation."
Dealing with how it will change the current system, he pointed out: "This legislation will have a two fold effect: It is offensive to judges because it says we really don't trust you. It shifts the powers from the judges to the prosecutors. The experience in the United States has been, when they had a grid of sentencing procedures, that the prosecutors held all the power. The prosecutors made the decision on how that case was going to go. So it's a significant shift in the philosophy of how we do our work in the criminal justice system; shifting most of the power from the judges into the laps of the prosecutors," he said.
Explaining the effect this will have on the system, he stated that there will be even more crowded court dockets than there are now. "With mandatory minimum sentences there is little or no incentive to ever plead guilty to a crime, knowing that the judge has no discretion other than jail time. This will result in mega-trials, even more crowded dockets and you'll have less resources because money is being spent on incarceration, not on Crown attorneys or judges," he said.
Giving his views on the significance of the legislation,
Professor David Tanovich dealt with the false notion guiding the
legislation that increased sentences will lead to fewer repeat
offences. "There is very little consensus at all that longer sentences
are a deterrent. However, there is good evidence that longer
sentences increase recidivism," he said. He pointed out that the
legislation is not based on a reality of increasing crime as violent
crime has been decreasing in Canada. Tanovich explained that in his
view systemic racism is the motivation behind the legislation. "They
are pandering to the moral panic. This is the engine
that drives racism in both Canada and the U.S. The unstated focus and
increasing punitive approach to drug and youth criminal justice are all
about targeting and separating those deemed by police, by the media and
by the public to be dangerous. Those deemed to be dangerous are largely
racialized youth, mainly
Black, Hispanic and South Asian youth. Our approach to incarceration is
the modern day form of segregation. We are warehousing Black and
Aboriginal and other youth in prisons, segregating them from society,"
he said.
Dealing particularly with the way the legislation targets drug trafficking, Tanovich pointed out that the real aim of targeting drug use is to go after marijuana use. He pointed out that police use the increased powers provided in the legislation for surveillance and harassment of the youth. He gave an example of how charges are laid but then not pursued, "In 2006-2007, 50 per cent of drug related court cases were thrown out. Not acquittals, but stayed, withdrawn or discharged," he said.
Brian Manarin began by pointing out that as a Crown lawyer he is not permitted to speak in opposition to the legislation but was speaking in his personal capacity and in his capacity as a member of the Faculty at the University. While Manarin argued in his opening remarks that Crown lawyers will still be able to use their discretion under Bill C-10, he gave the impression that this will have to be done much more creatively as a result of the increased use of mandatory minimum sentences. He posed the following question for the audience to consider: "The real issue is this: what is the goal of this legislation? If in fact it is going to put more people in jail. We know that, and appellant courts in the land have found [...] that people cannot be rehabilitated in an incarcerial setting. Arguably if you ever had to go to jail for a length of time the last thing you would be doing is trying to rehabilitate yourself. Your desire would be to survive. So when you come out, you have not been rehabilitated; it's because you have not had a chance to participate in any meaningful way. Is this bill [...] simply a bill to punish? And if it is simply a bill to punish then arguably parliament should say so, and say, we don't buy into the other tried and true sentencing principals. Our main goal in putting people in jail is to punish them. If they happen to rehabilitate; good for them, but that is not our prime concern."
He then addressed the significance of the omnibus nature of the legislation. He pointed out that criminal law is supposed to change incrementally. The omnibus legislation, he explained, makes it difficult for members of society to even understand or know what the law is.
Changes to Youth Criminal Justice Act and Conditional Sentencing Regime
An important theme that emerged in the discussion was the way in which the Youth Criminal Justice System is being changed. Professor Tanovich pointed out that the new legislation contains provisions for the Youth Criminal Justice Act to introduce so-called deterrence (minimum sentences) and denunciation (naming of young offenders). Under the previous legislation remediation and restorative justice were an important part of sentencing. Bill C-10 does away with these, he pointed out. The result will be more youth transferred to adult court, more youth named and shamed, more youth serving pre-trial custody in adult facilities and this will only make it worse, especially for aboriginal youth.
The legislation undermines the system of conditional sentencing that provides alternatives to incarceration such as house arrest or community supervision, Professor Ducharme explained, noting that the move to eliminate conditional sentencing began in 2009 when the Harper government made nine offences ineligible for conditional sentencing. With Bill C-10, according to his count, another 39 offences will be made ineligible for conditional sentencing. "This government has decided, without any empirical studies to support them, to get rid of conditional sentences," he pointed out.
Elaborating on the significance of removing eligibility for conditional sentences, he stated: "In the past, in deciding that we were incarcerating too many people and we ought to place more focus on rehabilitation, we decided we have to put more money at the front end trying to deter and avoid crime rather than putting it at the end in warehousing. So they came up with a great legislative scheme for conditional sentences. And what people have to realize is that conditional sentences were aimed at the less serious crimes, because in order to even seek a conditional sentence an individual has to demonstrate that they are facing an offence for which they would not receive a penalty greater than two years." Revealing how this is an attempt to eliminate any option other than incarceration, he pointed out that under current law it is not easy to get a conditional sentence if the crime is serious, but this legislation completely does away with this option that would keep people out of prison and in rehabilitation.
The forum ended with a question regarding the significance of the opposition by the Quebec and Ontario governments to the legislation. Professor Tanovich explained that many of the costs associated with the legislation are going to end up being borne by the provinces. "Most of the mandatory minimum sentences are under two years, so that we are talking about serving sentences in provincial facilities paid for by the province. Whether it will end up all being privatized, the government may well end up using this to deal with the provincial government's unwillingness to pay for the legislation."
"The government says their Act is to protect Canadians," Professor Tanovish said in closing, but he noted that the reality is that the kinds of offences Bill C-10 addresses, particularly drug offences, are ones Canadians do not need protection from. "None of the legislation addresses the issue of missing aboriginal women [...] [T]his Act will do nothing for sexual assault [...] [T]here is no evidence that this act has anything to do with protecting Canadians," he said.
Canadian Bar Association Emphasizes Central Importance of Respect for Human Rights
Posted below are excerpts from the presentation by Michael Jackson, Member, Committee on Imprisonment and Release, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association (CBA), to the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings considering Bill C-10.
***
The CBA is a national association of over 37,000 lawyers, notaries, law students, and academics, and our mandate includes seeking improvement in the law and the administration of justice.
The CBA national criminal justice section consists of a balance of prosecutors and defence lawyers from all parts of Canada. I'm a member of the committee on imprisonment and release. Our members have years of experience in practising within our prison walls.
The main theme of the CBA's recommendations on part 3 of the bill is the importance of protecting human rights as an integral part of correctional legislation. The overarching human right to dignity does not stop at the prison door and, as the Supreme Court has made clear, the Charter applies with full force to those imprisoned.
Human rights are not something to balance against prison discipline and control or prison accountability. Rather, they are something through which prison discipline and control must be exercised in a professional manner. Promoting and respecting human rights is not about being soft -- it is about being decent. It is also about how best to achieve public safety both inside and outside prison walls.
The modern recognition of the importance of respect for human rights in prisons can be traced to a 1977 report of this House in its inquiry into the penitentiary system in Canada. It was the violence that erupted deep from inside Canada's maximum security penitentiaries in riots and hostage-takings that led to the work of the committee.
It was the documentation of abuse of power and the inhumane conditions of confinement that gave rise to that House committee's clarion call that the rule of law must run inside Canadian penitentiaries and that justice was a personal human right and an essential precondition for reformation for offenders.
It is these principles, reinforced by the Charter and the Supreme Court, that underpin the legal obligations of CSC [Correctional Service of Canada] to respect human rights found in the current CCRA [Corrections and Conditional Release Act].
In these few minutes I can't touch on more than just one of our many recommendations in our written submission.
Broadly, our concerns are that the amendments undermine the protective umbrella of law to prevent abuse of authority; distort the respective responsibilities of the judiciary and the correctional authorities; and legitimate, under the language of benign words, more oppressive regimes.
I'm just going to deal with the one point, which I think this committee can come to grips with.
Bill C-10 would exorcize all references to the constitutional standard of the "least restrictive measures" in the CCRA.
For example, paragraph 4(d), one of the principles, now reads "that the Service use the least restrictive measures consistent with" public safety and the safety of staff and offenders. This standard traces its judicial heritage to the pre-Charter Supreme Court decision in Solosky and, as many of you know, the post-Charter decisions reflected in the Oakes case, which sets out the test for providing reasonable limits to a Charter right.
The proposed amendment to section 4 would read that "the Service uses measures that are consistent with the protection of society, staff members and offenders and that are limited to only what is necessary and proportionate to ... the purposes of this Act."
Not bad, but not good enough as a constitutional standard. The Oakes test and the Supreme Court have made it clear that in limiting rights what must be done is that the limitation must impair the right as little as possible, consistent with the purposes. The amendment, by taking out the words "least restrictive measures," takes out that vital component of the constitutional standard.
It's just three words: "least restrictive measures." The CBA proposed amendment is that you reinstate those three words. So using the existing language of the amendment, it would read that "the Service uses the least restrictive measures that are consistent with the protection of society, staff members and offenders and that are limited to only what is necessary and proportionate to ... the purposes of this Act."
Giving the waning respect for human rights in prisons, it is vital that these words be reinstated and that the constitutional standard of restraint be reinvigorated.
This committee is very busy, but you do not have to work mightily to make this amendment. It just requires adding "the least restrictive measures," a standard, well-respected, and well-rehearsed part of other federal and provincial legislation and, for the last 20 years, part of the correctional landscape of this country.
[...] But the final point, if I may, is that already -- and this is very alarming to me and to others -- the commissioner of corrections and other senior officials are telling CSC staff that this bill, in removing the least restrictive measures principle, is in fact in its place incorporating appropriate measures. That's not what the bill does, but it's the message that correctional staff are being given. It's alarming because it completely removes any sense of restraint on the exercise of authority. That's why we recommend that these three words be in fact reinstated into the legislation.
Concerns of Office of Correctional Investigator
About Inmate Treatment
Posted below are excerpts from the presentation of Howard Sapers, Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator, to the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings considering Bill C-10.
***
[...] Let me first very quickly remind members of the committee of the role and mandate of my office. The office was established in 1973 to function as an independent ombudsman for federally sentenced offenders. The office is an oversight body, not an advocacy body. My staff does not take sides when resolving complaints against the Correctional Service.
My office contributes to public safety by ensuring that the rule of law is upheld behind prison walls and that the Correctional Service of Canada is accountable, open, and transparent while fulfilling its very important public safety mandate. Although we are not always in agreement with the Correctional Service, both organizations serve a larger public safety interest by assisting offenders to lead a responsible and law-abiding life upon release.
With respect to my first concern, I am not convinced that section 4 and section 101 of the CCRA needs to be amended. The language of "least restrictive measures" that currently underlines the principles of the CCRA is one of the golden rules of corrections.
The least restrictive principle dictates that other less intrusive and restrictive alternatives must be assessed and considered when correctional authorities take a decision that restricts the life and liberty interests of offenders. My staff uses the least restrictive principle on a daily basis to review and investigate some of the most invasive practices in corrections, including involuntary transfer, placement into segregation, security classification, and the use of physical restraints.
It is also a standard by which my office assesses whether the Correctional Service used an appropriate and lawful degree of force when managing a security incident. Some aspects of Bill C-10 -- for example, expanding the use of mandatory minimum penalties, tightening of parole eligibility, and the elimination of house arrest for certain offences -- will invariably lead to more people behind bars serving longer sentences.
As I documented in my latest annual report, which was tabled only two days ago, the Correctional Service of Canada is already challenged to meet accommodation needs. Today, approximately 13% of the male inmate population is double-bunked, meaning that these inmates are housed in cells built for one. According to the Correctional Service, this number will increase to 30% before planned new construction is able to provide relief.
Prison crowding undermines nearly everything that can be positive or useful about a correctional environment. It is linked to increased levels of institutional violence. Prison crowding is a contributing factor to the spread of infectious disease. It reduces already limited access to correctional programming.
Some of the amendments will almost certainly have disproportionate impacts on Canada's more marginalized populations, including aboriginal peoples, visible minorities, those struggling with addictions and substance abuse problems, and the mentally ill. Indeed, nearly all of the growth in the correctional population over the past decade can be accounted for by these groups.
Correctional authorities are responsible for the care and humane custody of offenders and for actively assisting those offenders in their safe reintegration, while paroling authorities should render impartial decisions on whether offenders can be safely released into the community. These responsibilities are to be discharged recognizing that offenders have retained rights, and sentences are to be administered accordingly.
For this reason, I am unsure of the intent of proposed sections 4 and 101 requiring that sentences be managed with due regard for "the nature and gravity of the offence." I am certain that Parliament would not want to be seen to be directing the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada to add additional punishment to the order of the sentencing court.
This brings me to my final point on extending the ineligibility period for a pardon application and the proposal to make some ex-offenders ineligible for a pardon based on the offence or the number of offences committed. It's worth noting that the vast majority of individuals who receive a pardon do not reoffend.
The current system is based on a case-by-case analysis of all relevant risk assessment information. The system appears to work well. It's my view that we need to assist offenders to make a successful transition to a law-abiding life -- not create additional obstacles. The government's commendable commitment to enhance access to vocational training in federal corrections would be self-defeating if those newly trained offenders were to face additional barriers in securing legitimate employment.
Quebec Association of Defence Lawyers Calls for Complete Withdrawal of Bill
Below is the presentation to the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings considering Bill C-10 by Joëlle Roy, President, Representative, Laurentides-Lanaudière, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense (AQAAD).
***
I know that it's not up to me to ask questions here, but I do have one. And I think it's a fundamental one. Bill C-10 constitutes a major turnaround. It is a combination of a number of bills. Some of those bills were not passed, such as the former Bill C-15, which concerned drug trafficking and possession, and which is coming back into fashion.
Why introduce this bill? We have a judicial system that works. I know that. I practise it and I live it. Why are we introducing minimum sentences? Why are we increasing the minimum sentences that have already been introduced? What is motivating the government to introduce such a draconian bill?
The AQAAD is requesting that Bill C-10 be completely withdrawn because it is irrelevant. It is not supported by statistics or figures. It is utterly pointless. It will have devastating effects on the Canadian public. What I'm hearing this morning is a false debate. The bill is said to be about safety. Look, Canada is an absolutely safe country. If people don't feel safe in Canada, they may have a problem. Of course, the security of communities is indeed a concept that sells well. Our country is very safe.
The victim issue is also a somewhat pernicious argument, but it does sell well.
The minister of justice of New Brunswick talked about sex offenders. They're out there, and they always will be. Do we need such a major reform? We'll never eliminate sexual predation. The point is not to be in favour of or opposed to sexual predation. She says we need tools to assist Crown prosecutors. I'm a bit surprised and even stunned to hear that because she forgets that the tool is the Canadian judicial system.
We're there every day. Sentences are rendered. Every situation has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, section 718 of the Criminal Code provides for that. What this bill does -- and this is what has been going on for a number of years, since this government has been in power -- is impose a kind of gag on the Canadian judicial system, nothing more or less. They're gagging the judges, Crown counsel and defence attorneys, social workers and probation officers. That's what we're seeing. If someone needs a heavier sentence, if we're dealing with a multiple reoffender, it's the judge's duty to impose that sentence.
In the AQAAD's view, repression pure and simple does not work. Rehabilitation works. Quebec is a province that has always relied on rehabilitation, and it works. Rehabilitation aims for the long term. What kind of society do we want in the long term? We want a just society where we feel safe, but we won't get there through repression. Enacting large numbers of minimum sentences is tantamount to totalitarianism. The case-by-case approach, the offender, is being forgotten. The offender has indeed committed an offence, but will receive a sentence as a result. That's something.
Bringing victims into this debate distorts the debate, even though the intention is good. Taking care of victims is one thing, but that's not the role of the judicial system. The purpose of the judicial system is to impose a sentence on an individual who must face the law and the principles of law. That individual will receive a sentence for the crime he has committed. Victims, of course, may be heard and the impact on the victim will be taken into account, and so on. We can't do more than that. The point is to punish an individual under the law and the rules of law. We must not falsify the debate or lead it into inappropriate areas.
Victim Advocacy Group Emphasizes Need for Social Programs Not "Law and Order" Approach to Crime
Posted below are excerpts from the presentation to the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings considering Bill C-10 by Wilma Derksen, Founder, Victims' Voice Program and Past Coordinator, Mennonite Central Committee Canada.
***
[...] I am here on behalf of the Mennonite Central Committee [... h]owever, I will be speaking to you as a parent of a murdered child. I am also here because the issues you are addressing are extremely important to me and my family.
My daughter Candace was 13 years old when she was abducted and found murdered six weeks later. We lived for two decades without knowing the details of what happened. I not only know the horror of murder, but I am also intimately acquainted with the aftermath of violence. From the beginning, I began working with other victims, and I learned that the emotional aftermath can be as threatening as the crime itself. It does and it can destroy us.
The attention focused on this bill reminds me very much of the time when Candace first disappeared. All I could think of was the murder and the need for justice and safety. It was very difficult for me to think or talk about anything else, but I had to learn. I had two other children who were alive and I had a husband who needed a loving wife. If I had waited for justice and safety, I would have had to wait for a very long time -- life would have passed me by.
I am still involved with other victims of crime. Two weeks ago, I was with a group that spent most of the evening analyzing the problems of our justice system. We were wallowing in our pain, not always being politically correct, as one member put it, but allowing each other to speak freely.
At the end of the evening, I asked them what they would do to create justice in the country. To be honest, I expected that they would suggest changes to our criminal justice system similar to the bill that we have before us today. I thought they would prioritize safety at all costs, propose stiffer sentences, and advocate for victims' rights.
They didn't. As we went around the circle, they all agreed that the answer to crime is to put more emphasis on the school system and other social programs. While not denying that we have to maintain prisons, they insisted that we as a society need to put our energy and creative thinking into giving our young people a better education and a better life.
I could share equally compelling stories from my work with offenders. My experience in the way my family and I chose to respond opened up opportunities to visit many of the prisons across Canada, from William Head Institution in B.C. to Dorchester Penitentiary in New Brunswick.
I am thrilled to report that this last February we saw our own case finally brought to justice. For the first time, we actually heard the story of what had happened to our daughter, but the sentencing of the man who murdered our daughter did not satisfy our deep longing for justice. In some ways, we had already found justice in the joy of the good things that had come out of Candace's death and in the support of our community of friends.
The trial brought out the truth, and it was the truth that healed us and set us free, not the sentencing. I still find no satisfaction in thinking that the man will be sitting in prison for the next 25 years. There is nothing life-giving about that. It's just sad. And it's going to cost us probably $2.5 million.
In this short time I can't begin to give you a comprehensive critique of the bill, but I do want to register my concerns with the potential for unintended consequences. For example, even though it sounds wonderful to enshrine the victim's voice at Parole Board hearings, I also worry about this. Are we going to be putting pressure on victims? Could we be locking some victims and offenders together in a dysfunctional dialogue for the rest of their lives?
Perhaps we need to include the victims at the beginning of the process, mapping out their healing journey at the same time as we are sentencing the guilty. Perhaps this should be at the discretion of the judge. We can think about these things creatively.
Furthermore, I wonder if we can afford to focus so many of our scarce resources on mopping up the past so that there are only crumbs left for the living, who are struggling to find hope for the future. As the Minister of Justice rightly noted earlier this week, the Government of Canada is funding many creative community-based justice initiatives that address the root causes of crime, support victims of crime, and help ex-offenders reintegrate into the community. I would ask that you assign a greater proportion of your attention to this good work. [...]
Read The Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca